Pausa ativa e passiva sobre la pse


Published on

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Pausa ativa e passiva sobre la pse

  1. 1. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 2000, 14(2), 151–156᭧ 2000 National Strength & Conditioning AssociationEffects of Active and Passive Recovery Conditionson Blood Lactate, Rating of Perceived Exertion,and Performance During Resistance ExerciseKEITH P CORDER, JEFFREY A. POTTEIGER, KAREN L. NAU, .STEPHEN F FIGONI, AND SCOTT L. HERSHBERGER .Department of Health, Sport, and Exercise Sciences, University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas 66045.ABSTRACT IntroductionActive recovery has proven an effective means in reducingblood lactate concentration ([LaϪ]) after various activities, yetits effects on performance are less clear. We investigated the R esults obtained from past investigations indicate that performance may be adversely affected by el- evated blood lactate concentration ([LaϪ]) (17, 25, 27).effects of passive and active recovery on blood [LaϪ], rating High-intensity muscular contractions add to both in-of perceived exertion (RPE), and performance during a re- tramuscular and circulating levels of LaϪ and hydro-sistance training workout. Fifteen resistance-trained males gen ions (Hϩ) (11, 15) that will retard the rate of gly-completed 3 workouts, each consisting of 6 sets of parallel colysis by inhibiting the activity of glycolytic enzymessquat exercise performed at 85% of 10 repetition maximum (7) or interfere with the muscle contraction process (12,(10RM). Each set was separated by a 4-minute recovery pe- 20). The removal of LaϪ and Hϩ from the active muscleriod. Recovery was randomly assigned from the following: and blood after high-intensity exercise is thought to bepassive sitting; pedaling at 25% of onset of blood lactate ac- critical to subsequent peak performance (19).cumulation (OBLA) exercise intensity (25%-OBLA); and ped- There is a significant amount of literature identi-aling at 50% of OBLA exercise intensity (50%-OBLA). Activerecovery was performed on a bicycle ergometer at 70 fying the positive aspects of an active recovery on LaϪrev·minϪ1. Performance was determined postworkout by a removal during subsequent bouts of exercise lastingmaximal repetition performance (MRP) squat test using 65% 15–30 minutes. Previous investigations (2, 8, 9, 11, 21)of 10RM. Blood samples were collected: prewarm-up; post- have shown that LaϪ removal occurs more rapidlysecond, postfourth, postsixth, and MRP sets; and postsec- during continuous aerobic recovery. Specifically, Her-ond, postfourth, and postsixth recovery periods. Significant mansen and Stensvold (11) found that the greatest re-differences (p Յ 0.05) were observed in [LaϪ], and RPE ductions in blood [LaϪ] occurred at an average of 63%among the 3 recoveries, with 25%-OBLA lower than passive ˙ of maximal aerobic power (VO2max). Additional in-and 50%-OBLA. Total repetitions to exhaustion for the MRP vestigations have found that the rate of blood LaϪ dis-were: passive (24.1 Ϯ 1.8); 25%-OBLA (29.3 Ϯ 1.8); and 50%- appearance is related to the intensity of the recoveryOBLA (23.1 Ϯ 1.7), with 25%-OBLA being significantly exercise with optimal removal occurring between 25%greater than passive and 50%-OBLA. In this investigation, ˙ and 63% of VO2max (2, 8, 11).active recovery at 25%-OBLA proved to be the most effective Although the effectiveness of active recovery fol-means of reducing [LaϪ] during recovery and increasing per- lowing moderate-duration exercise is well documentedformance following a parallel squat workout. (2, 8, 11, 24, 29), few investigations (3, 23, 30) have determined the impact of short duration active recov-Key Words: onset of blood lactate accumulation, exer- ery (Ͻ10 minutes) on high-intensity exercise. Stamfordcise, training et al. (24) and Weltman et al. (29) found an increase in lactate clearance when using an active recovery follow- ing supramaximal and maximal exercise, respectively.Reference Data: Corder, K.P., J.A. Potteiger, K.L. Nau, Recently, Signorile et al. (23) examined performanceS.F. Figoni, and S.L. Hershberger. Effects of active and during a series of 8 6-second supramaximal rides onpassive recovery conditions on blood lactate, rating of a modified cycle ergometer separated by 30-second ac-perceived exertion, and performance during resistance tive or passive recovery periods. Their results indicat-exercise. J. Strength Cond. Res. 14(2):151–156. 2000. ed that active recovery provides superior performance over passive rest in repeated short-term, high-intensity 151
  2. 2. 152 Corder, Potteiger, Nau, Figoni, and Hershbergerpower activities. Weltman et al. (30) reported that The second session was used for determination of thewhen a 1-minute cycle ergometer ride was followed by subject’s 10 repetition maximum (10RM). Sessions 3–5either passive or active recovery, the active recovery were used for examining the influence of active andproduced significantly higher power output in a sub- passive recovery on blood [LaϪ], RPE, and perfor-sequent effort. This improved performance was attrib- mance during a parallel squat workout.uted to increased rates of LaϪ clearance. Bogdanis etal. (3) had subjects perform 2 maximal effort 30-second GXT and Strength Testingcycle ergometer sprints, separated by 4 minutes of ei- During the first session, subjects performed a GXT tother active or passive recovery. Active recovery result- determine the onset of blood lactate accumulationed in a significantly higher mean power output during (OBLA) and peak oxygen consumption (VO2peak) onsprint 2 compared to passive recovery. a Monark 818E cycle ergometer. The test began at a To our knowledge, the impact of active versus pas- power output of 40 W and was increased by 40 Wsive recovery on LaϪ metabolism and performance every 3 minutes until subjects were unable to maintainduring resistance training exercise has not been re- a pedaling cadence of 70 rev·minϪ1. Expired gasesported. Resistance-trained athletes, such as bodybuild- were collected from the subjects using a 1-way valveers or power-lifters, must perform exercises at maxi- and analyzed for oxygen and carbon dioxide concen-mal or near maximal intensities with repeated efforts trations using a Sensormedics 2900 Metabolic Mea-in order to enhance muscular hypertrophy and/or surement Cart (Yorba Linda, CA). The flow meter andstrength. Recovery between efforts for these athletes gas analyzers were calibrated prior to each test usingmay be a critical issue for maximizing performance; a 3-L gas syringe and gases of known concentrations,however, to our knowledge no investigations have ex- respectively. Heart rate and RPE were recorded at 30amined this issue. Therefore, the purpose of this study seconds prior to the end of each exercise stage duringwas to determine the effects of active and passive re- the test with the use of a Polar heart rate telemetrycovery on blood [LaϪ], rating of perceived exertion unit (Polar Electro Inc., Port Washington, NY) and the(RPE), and performance on a maximal test of parallel 10-point Borg category-ratio scale, respectively (5).squats. Achieving any 2 of the 3 following criteria constituted ˙ attainment of VO2peak: a plateau of the oxygen uptakeMethods with an increase in power output; a respiratory ex-Subjects change ratio Ͼ1.10; and heart rate within Ϯ10 beats·minϪ1 of age-predicted maximum (22).Fifteen resistance-trained males volunteered to partic- Fingerstick samples of blood were collected at restipate in the study. The physical characteristics (mean and during the last 30 seconds of each exercise stage.Ϯ SD) of the subjects were as follows: age (23.5 Ϯ 1.3 Samples were immediately analyzed for blood [LaϪ]years); height (177.5 Ϯ 1.4 cm); body mass (88.3 Ϯ 2.9 using a calibrated YSI 1500 Sport L-lactate analyzerkg); and 10 repetition maximum in the parallel squat (Yellow Springs, OH). For this study the OBLA was(150.7 Ϯ 4.8 kg). Prior to participation in the study, operationally defined as the power output correspond-each subject received an explanation of the procedures ing to the 4.0 mmol·LϪ1 blood [LaϪ] (10). The exerciseand provided written informed consent in accordance intensity equivalent to 25% and 50% of the OBLAwith university guidelines for human experimentation. (25%-OBLA and 50%-OBLA) was calculated and usedThe criteria for acceptance as a subject included par- during the active recovery periods of the resistanceticipation in a current resistance-training program at training workout.least 3 d·wkϪ1 for a minimum of 6 months prior to At least 48 hours after completion of the GXT, eachstarting the investigation and no medical contraindi- subject performed a strength test to determine hiscations. During the study the subjects refrained from 10RM for the parallel squat exercise. The squat exerciseconsuming any food or beverage for at least 3 hours was performed using a standard Olympic barbell in abefore each testing session, participating in any type safety rack with each subject wearing a weight belt forof exercise for at least 24 hours prior to each exercise low back support. Proper range of motion was sig-test, and participating in any type of lower extremity naled to the subject when a parallel position of theexercise for a minimum of 3 days prior to each exercise femur (midthigh) to the floor was attained. The 10RMtest. For the duration of the study subjects were in- dynamic strength test procedure was performed ac-structed to maintain normal dietary patterns and re- cording to a previously described protocol (26). Verbalfrain from using any ergogenic aids. encouragement was provided to elicit a maximal effortStudy Design from each subject. The heaviest mass a subject couldThere were 5 testing sessions, with each session per- lift 10 times, determined to the nearest 0.5 kg, provid-formed at the same time of day for a given subject. ed a measure of that subject’s 10RM. From the 10RMThe first session involved the collection of physical observed during the dynamic strength test, the resis-data and performance of a graded exercise test (GXT). tance equivalent to 85% of 10RM (mean Ϯ SD, 128.1
  3. 3. Recovery and Resistance Training 153 Table 1. Blood [LaϪ] prior to and following a resistance training workout employing different recovery conditions (N ϭ15) (mean Ϯ SE).* Postset Postrec Postset Postrec Postset Postrec Post-MRP Condition Prewarmup 2 2ac 4ac 4ac 6abc 6abc setabcPassive 1.3 Ϯ 0.1 4.9 Ϯ 0.4 5.4 Ϯ 0.4 6.7 Ϯ 0.5 6.7 Ϯ 0.6 7.6 Ϯ 0.6 7.7 Ϯ 0.7 9.0 Ϯ 0.525%-OBLA† 1.4 Ϯ 0.1 4.6 Ϯ 0.3 4.5 Ϯ 0.4 5.7 Ϯ 0.4 5.6 Ϯ 0.5 6.5 Ϯ 0.5 6.2 Ϯ 0.5 8.1 Ϯ 0.450%-OBLA 1.2 Ϯ 0.1 4.7 Ϯ 0.3 5.1 Ϯ 0.4 6.2 Ϯ 0.5 6.2 Ϯ 0.5 6.9 Ϯ 0.5 7.1 Ϯ 0.6 8.4 Ϯ 0.4 * Within a measurement, superscript a refers to a significant difference between the passive and 25%-OBLA conditions;superscript b refers to a significant difference between the passive and 50%-OBLA conditions; and superscript c refers to asignificant difference between the 25%-OBLA and 50%-OBLA conditions (p Յ 0.05). † OBLA ϭ onset of blood lactate accumulation.Ϯ 4.1 kg) was calculated and used during the parallel All 3 testing sessions were completed within a 2-weeksquat workout. period.Resistance Training Workouts Data AnalysisEach subject returned to the laboratory to perform In order to determine the appropriate number of sub-each of 3 recovery conditions during a parallel squat jects to include in this study, a priori power analysisworkout. Each subject started the test session by rest- was conducted. Assuming a 2-tailed ␣ of 0.05, a de-ing supine for a period of 10 minutes prior to the first sired level of power of at least 0.80, and an effect sizeblood collection. After resting [LaϪ] was determined, of 0.92, the required sample was approximately 15each subject performed 2 warm-up sets of 10 repeti- subjects (6). Prior to performing the statistical analy-tions at 50% of 10RM. Each set was separated by 4 ses, the assumption of sphericity under repeated-mea-minutes of passive recovery. After the warm up, all sures analysis of variance (ANOVA) was tested.subjects performed 6 sets of 10 repetitions at 85% of Huynh–Feldt ⑀ values ranged from 0.74 to 1.09 for the10RM. The 3 recovery conditions were randomly as- ANOVAs, indicating that all assumptions necessary forsigned and involved the following: (a) passive recov- the use of repeated-measures ANOVA were met (13).ery, (b) active recovery at 25%-OBLA, and (c) active Repeated-measures 2-way ANOVA, with LaϪ and RPErecovery at 50%-OBLA. Passive recovery (quietly sit- as the within-subjects factors and type of recovery asting) and active recovery were performed on a Monark the between-subjects factor, were conducted. Paired t-818E cycle ergometer. Following the last recovery pe- tests were used to identify mean differences. No cor-riod of each parallel squat workout, a maximal repe- rection for multiple hypothesis testing was requiredtition performance (MRP) measure was determined by because in the specific case when the number of con-having the subject perform as many repetitions as pos- ditions equals 3, a significant omnibus F-ratio itselfsible on the parallel squat exercise using 65% of his provides a strong control for the experimentwise error10RM (mean Ϯ SD, 98.0 Ϯ 3.1 kg). This test has been rate (18). Pearson correlation coefficients were used toused previously as a measure of resistance training establish the relationship between [LaϪ] and RPE ver-performance (28). The subjects were instructed to sus the number of repetitions performed during themaintain a constant up-down, no-rest cadence until MRP. An ␣ level of 0.05 was set for all statistical test-they could no longer successfully complete a repeti- ing. All results are reported as mean Ϯ SEM.tion. Blood [LaϪ] was determined from fingerstick blood Resultssamples collected: prewarm-up; postsecond, post-fourth, postsixth, and MRP sets; and postsecond, post- ˙ The subjects in this investigation had a VO2peak onfourth, and postsixth recovery periods. All blood was the cycle ergometer of 41.9 Ϯ 6.2 ml·kgϪ1·minϪ1. Theanalyzed using a calibrated YSI 1500 Sport L-lactate power output at 25%-OBLA was 45.9 Ϯ 9.1 W and atanalyzer. Within the 4-minute recovery period, blood 50%-OBLA was 73.4 Ϯ 14.6 W. The oxygen uptake val-samples were collected via fingerstick within 30 sec- ues for the subjects were 6.9 Ϯ 1.3 ml·kgϪ1·minϪ1 andonds after completion of each set and within 30 sec- 13.8 Ϯ 2.5 ml·kgϪ1·minϪ1 for recovery at 25%-OBLAonds prior to the end of each rest period. Blood sam- and 50%-OBLA, respectively.ples during active recovery sessions were collected Blood [LaϪ] among the 3 conditions of passive re-while the subjects were pedaling. An RPE using the covery, 25%-OBLA, and 50%-OBLA are shown in Table10-point Borg ratio scale (5) was determined at each 1. Across all conditions, there was a significant in-blood collection point. Each subject then returned crease in [LaϪ] over time. Additionally, the conditionwithin 4–7 days to complete the next testing session. by linear trend for the [LaϪ] interaction was signifi-
  4. 4. 154 Corder, Potteiger, Nau, Figoni, and Hershberger Table 2. Ratings of perceived exertion (RPE) prior to, during, and following a resistance training workout employingdifferent recovery conditions (N ϭ 15) (mean Ϯ SEM).* Postset Postrec Postset Postrec Postset Postrec Post-MRP Condition Prewarmup 2 2bc 4c 4c 6ac 6abc setcPassive 0 2.5 Ϯ 0.3 2.0 Ϯ 0.2 4.5 Ϯ 0.4 3.7 Ϯ 0.3 6.7 Ϯ 0.3 5.9 Ϯ 0.3 9.5 Ϯ 0.125%-OBLA† 0 2.4 Ϯ 0.3 2.0 Ϯ 0.2 4.2 Ϯ 0.2 3.6 Ϯ 0.2 5.8 Ϯ 0.4 4.9 Ϯ 0.4 9.3 Ϯ 0.250%-OBLA 0 2.5 Ϯ 0.3 2.6 Ϯ 0.3 5.0 Ϯ 0.3 4.4 Ϯ 0.3 7.1 Ϯ 0.3 6.7 Ϯ 0.4 9.7 Ϯ 0.2 * Within a measurement, superscript a refers to a significant difference between the passive and 25%-OBLA conditions;superscript b refers to a significant difference between the passive and 50%-OBLA conditions; and superscript c refers to asignificant difference between the 25%-OBLA and 50%-OBLA conditions (p Յ 0.05). † OBLA ϭ onset of blood lactate accumulation.cant, showing that the conditions differed in the rate Table 3. Pearson correlation coefficients for postrecoveryby which [LaϪ] increased. No significant mean differ- 6 [LaϪ], postrecovery 6 ratings of perceived exertion (RPE),ences in [LaϪ] were found in the prewarm-up or post- and a maximal repetition performance (MRP) measures fol-set 2 time points; however, for the other sets and re- lowing resistance training workouts using 3 different recov- ery conditions (N ϭ 15).covery periods, a significant omnibus F-ratio indicatedthe presence of at least 1 significant difference among [LaϪ] [LaϪ] RPEthe 3 conditions. The most frequent significant differ- versus versus versusence in [LaϪ] occurred between the passive and 25%- Condition RPE performance performanceOBLA conditions, with subjects in the passive condi-tion having the higher [LaϪ] (Table 1). This was true Passive 0.30 Ϫ0.72* Ϫ0.22for [LaϪ] in postrecovery 2 through the post-MRP time 25%-OBAL† Ϫ0.07 Ϫ0.70* 0.05points. Also, for [LaϪ] in postrecovery 2 through the 50%-OBLA 0.46 Ϫ0.65* Ϫ0.48post-MRP time points, a significant difference oc-curred between 25%-OBLA and 50%-OBLA condi- * p Յ 0.01.tions, with subjects in the 50%-OBLA condition having † OBLA ϭ onset of blood lactate accumulation.the higher [LaϪ]. Only in postset 6, postrecovery 6, andthe post-MRP time points did the passive and 50%-OBLA conditions differ significantly (subjects engaged 50%-OBLA condition. Thus, the RPE was higher over-in passive recovery had higher levels of lactate). When all for the 50%-OBLA condition, followed by the pas-engaged in either of the active recovery conditions, es- sive condition, with RPEs lowest for the 25%-OBLApecially at 25%-OBLA, subjects tended to have lower condition.lactate levels than when engaged in passive recovery. A significant difference was found in the MRP test. Significant differences in RPE among the 3 condi- The results of the followup-dependent t-tests indicatetions of passive recovery, 25%-OBLA, and 50%-OBLA that MRP was significantly higher in the 25%-OBLAare shown in Table 2. Additionally, the condition by condition in comparison to the other 2 conditions.linear trend for the RPE interaction was also signifi- There was no significant difference between passivecant, showing that the conditions differed in the rate recovery and 50%-OBLA condition. The MRP mea-by which the RPEs increased. No significant differ-ences in RPE were found between the prewarm-up or sures for each of the recovery conditions were as fol-postset 2 time points; however, for the other time lows: passive (24.1 Ϯ 1.8 reps), 25%-OBLA (29.3 Ϯ 1.8points, a significant omnibus F-ratio indicated the reps), and 50%-OBLA (23.1 Ϯ 1.7 reps).presence of at least 1 significant difference among the Correlation coefficients for postrecovery 6 [LaϪ],3 conditions. Significant mean differences in RPE oc- postrecovery 6 RPE, and MRP for each of the 3 recov-curred between the passive and 25%-OBLA conditions ery conditions are shown in Table 3. A significant, neg-in postset 6 through the post-MRP time points, with ative correlation was observed between the postrecov-passive recovery showing a higher RPE. Significant ery 6 [LaϪ] and the MRP measure. Not surprisingly,mean differences in RPE also occurred between the the lower the [LaϪ] prior to the MRP, the higher thepassive and 50%-OBLA conditions in postrecovery 2 maximal number of repetitions possible. No significantand postrecovery 6, with passive recovery having a relationships were found in any of the conditions be-lower RPE. Finally, in postrecovery 2 through the post- tween the postrecovery 6 [LaϪ] time point and RPE,recovery 6 time points, the RPE for the 25%-OBLA nor between postrecovery 6 RPE time point and thecondition was significantly lower than the RPE for the MRP measure.
  5. 5. Recovery and Resistance Training 155Discussion of the working muscles would increase the efflux of LaϪ from the exercising tissue. This increased activityThe primary question in the present study was wheth- during recovery, especially if it was of low intensity,er or not active recovery decreased LaϪ accumulation should enhance performance because of the increasedbetween sets of parallel squat exercises. The results LaϪ and Hϩ efflux from the working muscles and de-from the present investigation indicate that lactate ac- creased intracellular [Hϩ]. This increased activity dur-cumulation was decreased when low-intensity exercise ing recovery should allow the working tissues to con-was employed during the recovery periods between tinue performing in an optimal cellular environment.sets (Table 1). The present data reveal that the most Failure to consider the individual differences for aneffective strategy for decreasing lactate accumulation optimal recovery exercise intensity with respect towas to perform active recovery at 25% of the OBLA; each subject’s OBLA could possibly shift the balancerecoveries using passive rest and active recovery at to a greater production of lactate. In the present study,50% of the OBLA were significantly less effective. It in order to precipitate an optimal lactate eliminationalso appears that [LaϪ] decreases during each recovery response, individual OBLA were determined using aperiod compared to the exercise set just prior to it dur- GXT. According to Heck et al. (10), a maximal steadying the 25%-OBLA condition only (Table 1). The ob- state was found at a lactate value of 4.02 mmol·LϪ1. Byservation that the rate of lactate removal facilitated by observing the exercise intensity at the 4.0 mmol·LϪ1the performance of active recovery has been observed blood [LaϪ], we were able to individualize each sub-previously (8, 9, 21). The data in the present investi- ject’s recovery intensities. The power outputs used ingation are in agreement with several other studies in- the current study were ϳ46 W and ϳ74 W for 25%-volving the use of active recovery (1, 11, 24, 29, 30). OBLA and 50%-OBLA, respectively. These values, rel-The blood lactate concentration is a balance between ative to the OBLA, are within the previously reportedthe removal and the production of lactate (2, 4, 8, 9, optimal values for active recovery (2, 4, 8). At exercise14). Alterations in blood [LaϪ] during exercise are intensities greater than the OBLA, there will be an im-therefore the net result of the simultaneous, but not balance between the rates of LaϪ production and clear-necessarily proportional, changes in the production ance, and as a result, LaϪ will progressively accumu-and/or removal of LaϪ. While the mechanism for en- late in the blood (16). Therefore, if the OBLA of anhanced LaϪ disappearance during active recovery athlete is evaluated, and the resulting information isfrom strenuous exercise is unknown, the oxidation of to be applied to the training regime, an effective andLaϪ within the exercising skeletal muscle may be a ma- safe means to performance enhancement can be pro-jor mechanism for lactate clearance (9, 30). Gisolfi et (9) suggest that the increased clearance rate of LaϪ A finding of interest in this investigation is theduring active recovery was probably a result of more variation of significant mean differences in RPErapid distribution of lactate to the liver for oxidation throughout the workout sets. As indicated in Table 2,or reconversion to glycogen, increased utilization of significant differences in RPE occurred between thelactate by the cardiac muscle, and increased utilization passive and 25%-OBLA conditions in postset 6of lactate by active and inactive skeletal muscles. through post-MRP time points and between the pas- Another important finding in the present investi- sive and 50%-OBLA conditions in postset 3 and post-gation was the high relationship between elevated recovery 6. Additionally, in postrecovery 2 throughblood [LaϪ] and subsequent exercise performance. As postrecovery 6, the RPE for the 25%-OBLA conditionexpected, there was an increase in [LaϪ] following sets was significantly lower than the RPE for the 50%-2, 4, and 6. Moreover, the blood [LaϪ] postset 6 dif- OBLA condition. Thus, the RPE was higher overall forfered significantly between conditions and was nega- the 50%-OBLA condition. These data indicate a re-tively correlated with the [LaϪ] and the maximal rep- duced perception of effort during exercise at loweretitions performed (Table 3). These data indicate that intensity compared to passive and higher intensitysubjects with higher [LaϪ] performed fewer repetitions recovery. Although there were significant differenceson the maximal repetition performance test. These between the recovery conditions, no significant corre-findings are in agreement with previous studies (17, lations were observed between postrecovery 6 RPE27), in that work performance is inhibited and muscle and MRP within each of the 3 recovery conditions.fatigue occurs when blood [LaϪ] is elevated due to pri- In summary, the present study demonstrated thator exercise. Bogdanis et al. (3) suggest there are at least lower-intensity active recovery effectively minimized4 mechanisms that may explain the performance im- LaϪ accumulation compared to passive or higher-in-provement after active recovery: a greater creatine- tensity active recovery. The data strongly support thephosphate resynthesis; a lower muscle [LaϪ] and [Hϩ]; view that the elimination of LaϪ occurs using low-in-an increased contribution of aerobic metabolism to en- tensity active recovery following intense resistance ex-ergy supply; and nonmetabolic factors. Hermansen ercise and is associated with improved endurance per-and Stensvold (11) observed that an increased activity formance in the squat exercise.
  6. 6. 156 Corder, Potteiger, Nau, Figoni, and Hershberger velopment independent of pH. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 27:317–Practical Applications 327. 1995. 13. HUYNH, H., AND F.S. FELDT. Estimation of the Box correction forWhen attempting to improve large muscle resistance degrees of freedom from sample data in randomized block andtraining performance an active recovery between sets split-plot designs. J. Educ. Stat. 1:69–82. 1976.should be used. The improvement in performance is 14. ISSEKUTZ, B., AND H. MILLER. Plasma free fatty acids during ex-likely due to a decrease in lactate accumulation during ercise and the effect of lactic acid. Proc. Soc. Exp. Biol. Med. 110:recovery. Based on the data from this investigation it 237–239. 1962. 15. KARLSSON, J., B. HULTEN, AND B. SJODIN. Substrate activationappears that exercise at 25% of the power elicited at a and product inhibition of LDH activity in human skeletal mus-blood lactate concentration of 4.0 mmol·LϪ1 is better cle. Acta Physiol. Scand. 92:21–26. 1974.than passive recovery or exercise at 50% of the power 16. KARLSSON, J., AND B. SALTIN. Lactate, ATP, and CP in workingelicited at a 4.0 mmol·LϪ1 blood lactate concentration. muscle during exhaustive exercise in man. J. Appl. Physiol. 29:Strength and conditioning professionals and athletes 598–602. 1970. 17. KARLSSON, J., B. SJODIN, A. THORSTENSSON, B. HULTEN, AND K.should identify this exercise intensity through testing FRITH. LDH isozymes in skeletal muscles of endurance andand then incorporate an active recovery scheme into strength trained athletes. Acta Physiol. Scand. 93:150–156. 1975.their training workout. 18. LEVIN, J.R., R.C. SERLIN, AND M.A. SEAMAN. A controlled, pow- erful multiple comparison strategy for several situations. Psychol. Bull. 115:153–159. 1994.References 19. LINDINGER, M.I., R.S. MCKELVIE, AND G.J.F. HEIGENHAUSER. Kϩ and LacϪ distribution in humans during and after high-intensity 1. BANGSBO, J., T. GRAHAM, L. JOHANSEN, AND B. SALTIN. Muscle exercise: Role in muscle fatigue attenuation. J. Appl. Physiol. 78: lactate metabolism in recovery from intense exhaustive exercise: 765–777. 1995. Impact of light exercise. J. Appl. Physiol. 77:1890–1895. 1994. 20. NAKAMARU, Y., AND A. SCHWARTZ. The influence of hydrogen 2. BELCASTRO, A.N., AND A. BONEN. Lactic acid removal rates dur- ion concentration on calcium binding and release by skeletal ing controlled and uncontrolled recovery exercise. J. Appl. Phys- muscle sarcoplasmic reticulum. J. Gen. Physiol. 59:22–32. 1972. iol. 39:932–936. 1975. 21. NEWMAN, E.V., D.B. DILL, H.T. EDWARDS, AND F.H. WEBSTER. 3. BOGDANIS, G.C., M.E. NEVILL, H.K.A. LAKOMY, C.M. GRAHAM, The rate of lactic acid removal in exercise. Am. J. Physiol. 118: AND G. LOUIS. Effects of active recovery on power output during 457–462. 1937. repeated maximal sprint cycling. Eur. J. Appl. Physiol. 74:461–469. 22. POLLOCK, M., AND J. WILMORE. Exercise in Health and Disease. 1996. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders, 1990. 4. BONEN, A., AND A.N. BELCASTRO. Comparison of self-selected 23. SIGNORILE, J.F., C. INGALLS, AND L.M. TREMBLAY. The effects of recovery methods on lactic acid removal rates. Med. Sci. Sports active and passive recovery on short-term, high-intensity power Exerc. 8:176–178. 1976. output. Can. J. Appl. Physiol. 18:31–42. 1993. 5. BORG, G.A.V. Psychophysical bases of perceived exertion. Med. 24. STAMFORD, B.A., R.J. MOFFATT, A. WELTMAN, C. MALDONADO, Sci. Sports Exerc. 14:377–381. 1982. AND M. CURTIS. Blood lactate disappearance after supramaximal 6. COHEN, J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. one-legged exercise. J. Appl. Physiol. 45:244–248. 1978. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 1987. 25. STAMFORD, B.A., A. WELTMAN, R. MOFFATT, AND S. SADY. Ex- 7. DANFORTH, W.H., AND E. HELMREICH. Regulation of glycolysis ercise recovery above and below the anaerobic threshold follow- in muscle. The conversion of phosphorlyase b to phosphorylase ing maximal work. J. Appl. Physiol. 51:840–844. 1981. a in frog sartorius muscle. J. Biol. Chem. 239:3133–3138. 1964. 26. STONE, M., AND S. O’BRYANT. Weight Training: A Scientific Ap- 8. DAVIES, C.T.M., A.V. KNIBBS, AND J. MUSGROVE. The rate of lactic proach. Minneapolis: Bellwether Press, 1987. acid removal in relation to different baselines of recovery exer- 27. TESCH, P., B. SJODIN, A. THORSTENSSON, AND J. KARLSSON. Mus- cise. Int. Z. Angew. Physiol. 28:155–161. 1970. cle fatigue and its relation to lactate accumulation and LDH ac- 9. GISOLFI, C., S. ROBINSON, AND E.S. TURRELL. Effects of aerobic tivity in man. Acta Physiol. Scand. 103:413–429. 1978. work performed during recovery from exhausting work. J. Appl. 28. TUTTLE, J.L., J.A. POTTEIGER, B.W. EVANS, AND J.C. OZMUN. Ef- Physiol. 21:1767–1772. 1966. fect of potassium–magnesium aspartate supplementation on10. HECK, H., A. MADER, G. HESS, S. MUCKE, R. MULLER, AND W. ammonia concentrations during and after resistance training. HOLLMANN. Justification of the 4-mmol/L lactate threshold. Int. Int. J. Sport Nutr. 5:102–109. 1995. J. Sports Med. 6:117–130. 1985. 29. WELTMAN, A., B.A. STAMFORD, AND C. FULCO. Recovery from11. HERMANSEN, L., AND I. STENSVOLD. Production and removal of maximal effort exercise: Lactate disappearance and subsequent lactate during exercise in man. Acta Physiol. Scand. 86:191–201. performance. J. Appl. Physiol. 47:677–682. 1979. 1972. 30. WELTMAN, A., B.A. STAMFORD, R.J. MOFFATT, AND V.L. KATCH.12. HOGAN, M.C., L.B. GLADDEN, S.S. KURDAK, AND D.C. POOLE. Exercise recovery, lactate removal, and subsequent high-inten- Increased [lactate] in working dog muscle reduces tension de- sity exercise performance. Res. Q. 48:786–796. 1977.